## Albert Einstein was a Smart Guy

Before getting into the errors of Albert Einstein's logic, let us first acknowledge that Albert Einstein was a smart guy. His Special Relativity theory does explain how observers going different velocities can appear to be traveling slower or faster than they really are. Albert Einstein's photoelectric effect justly earned him a Nobel Prize in physics. Albert Einstein also correctly realized that space surrounding massive objects is curved according to the Riemann curvature mathematics.

Let's not deprive Albert Einstein of respect due to him for his intelligence. However, let us also not take Albert Einstein on his word for everything he says. We need to keep an open and critical mind through all of Albert Einstein's reasoning, and also for the reasoning of those who claim to explain Albert Einstein's work. The following is a synoptic and critical examination of some of the main fallacies surrounding Albert Einstein's works.

## Mass / Energy Equivalence

It is claimed by Albert Einstein's followers that he proved the equivalence of mass and energy. Some physicists backtrack from this position and say that Relativity theory only shows that the energy content of an object is equivalent to its mass.

Without repeating the long arguments of Einstein's followers, let us just start with what mass and energy are: mass is a dimension of inertia, and energy is a unit of work.

### Mass is a Dimension of Inertia

Inertia is the ability of an object or unit of action in motion to remain in motion, and an object or unit of action at rest to remain at rest. Mass is a description of the inertial quality, and is not equal to matter. Matter involves multiple dimensions of mass, length, frequency, and charge; mass is just mass. There is no physical thing that is mass; mass is a property of things, and not what things are made out of.

### Energy is a Unit of Work

Energy is the ability to do work. Energy is not equal to radiation or matter. Energy is defined as mass times velocity squared; or you could say energy is defined as momentum times velocity, or you can express energy in several other ways. There is no physical "thing" that is energy; energy is a property of things; energy describes what a thing does, and not what a thing is. Energy as a unit only describes work, and the unit of energy does not describe the potential to do work. The concepts of potential energy and kinetic energy are different entities than the unit of work, and they fall into a different category of physics. The unit of energy, and the concepts of potential and kinetic energy have the word "energy" in them, but they have different meanings and uses in physics.

### Mass is not Equivalent to Energy

There is no equivalence of inertia and work; an object can be perfectly still and its inertia will remain. An object with zero energy has no energy at all; that is, the object is not doing work.

When terms such as "inertial mass." "relativistic mass," "potential energy," and "kinetic energy" are used in the same context as the unit of mass and the unit of energy, then we have what is colloquially called, "word salad." Words with the same sound, but different meanings, are just tossed together and the result has nothing to do with physical reality.

## C = 1

One of the fallacies used to convey the concept of mass/energy equivalence is the arbitrary introduction of the idea that the speed of light can be set to be equal to 1. The reasoning goes like this:

$$E=mc^{2}$$

The unit of energy is said to be equal to the dimension of mass times the speed of photons squared. And if we choose a system of units where $$c = 1$$ then we would get:

$$E=m$$

This is a fallacy for two reasons:

1. $$E=mc^{2}$$ is an equation, which means that the right side is equal to the left side. In mathematics and physics, when you change one side of an equation, you must make the same change to the other side of the equation to maintain the equality. Since $$E=mc^{2}$$, then $$mc^{2}=mc^{2}$$, and changing c to equal 1 means that $$m=m$$. There is no equality of $$E=m$$.
2. There is no such thing as a system of units where velocity can equal 1. In order for such a system of units to exist the unit of length would have to be equal to the unit of time, as that is the only way length per time can equal 1. What can be accomplished when the unit of length is equal to the unit of time? What would the dimension be called? You could literally call the dimension whatever you want and give it whatever value you want and it would always accurately portray the speed of photons as 1, but it could do nothing else.

To arbirtarily assign the value of 1 to the speed of photons is just childish nonsense; it is meaningless in physics, and it is nothing more than a gimmick for convincing others that a fallacy might be true.

## Energy is the Same as Radiation

A paper written by Albert Einstein that is often cited in support of mass/energy equivalence is called in English, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy-Content?" In this paper Albert Einstein writes, "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2 . The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference..." This is a fallacy.

Albert Einstein is claiming that radiation is the same thing as energy. There is no scientific basis for this sweeping claim. Radiation consists of photons, electrons, protons, positrons, antiprotons, neutrons, and alpha particles. It is true that photons can be said to be the same as energy, but not the subatomic particles or the helium nucleus. When subatomic particles leave an atom or molecule, they are still physical matter and they travel at velocities less than c.

The paper was written 27 Sep 1905, which was before physicists really understood much about subatomic particles.

## Nuclear Energy Budgets

In the same paper just mentioned, Albert Einstein made a prediction: "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test."

Well, the theory has been put to the test. There are now over eighty years of highly detailed and very accurate accounting records related to nuclear explosions and nuclear power generators. Engineers have mastered techniques for precisely measuring the driver fuel of nuclear explosives and nuclear reactors, the radiation of nuclear reactions, the energy release of nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy and radiation transferred to the cooling medium and reactor container, and the total amount of fuel remaining after the reactions.

All of the information needed to analyze the energy budget of nuclear reactions for more than 80 years of operation, with multiple nuclear powered devices, and by thousands of physicistis and engineers, has been available for testing Albert Einstein's prediction. There is not one single paper in all the planet that demonstrates the equivalence of mass and energy from nuclear reactions. In fact, there are reports from the engineers of Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors that explicitly state that more fuel remains after a nuclear reaction than what was available before the reaction, and this is in addition to all the energy that was produced.

Many scientists dismiss this fact by claiming that the resulting fuel is simply a more refined fuel for running more nuclear reactions, but that the mass must have decreased. If this was true, the reports would have explicitly stated this fact to prevent confusion from arising. In fact, none of these reports cite Albert Einstein's prediction of mass/energy equivalence, or anything about Albert Einstein at all.

Not only are the engineers adamant that there is more mass produced during the nuclear reactions, the physical evidence for mass increase is all around us. Stars grow in size both in mass and volume (although the official narrative is that stars are bloating and becoming less dense even while losing mass). The Hubble Constant is necessary to account for the expansion of the Universe; the expansion of the Universe occurs in both volume and mass. The Casimir effect demonstrates the production of real photons (although many scientists still promote the narrative that the Casimir effect produces only virtual photons).

The bottom line is that there is no evidence supporting a balanced mass/energy budget in the Universe, nor are their any true physics principles that can equate energy with radiation, or energy with mass.

## Gravity Equals Acceleration

One of the great fallacies attributed to Albert Einstein is that gravity causes acceleration and acceleration causes gravity. A common analogy is that someone in a rocketship could be theoretically moving at 1 G away from the Earth; thus the occupant of the rocketship could not tell the difference between being in space or standing on the surface of the Earth. While the analogy is correct, it is also misleading; the implication is that force caused by thrust is equal to gravity, which it is not.

If we are in a car, and we hit the accelerator, our back gets pushed against the seat. According to the above analogy, that force you feel is the same gravity you feel relative to the Earth, except that now it is also coming from your back. This is absurd. Force caused by thrust may seem like gravity to an occupant inside a rocketship, but that does not make it a force due to gravity.

Any mass that is accelerated will feel a force. Any two objects with mass will feel a force of gravity between them. Any two electrostaticly charged bodies will feel an electrostatic force between them. Any two magnetic bodies will feel a magnetic force between them. There are many different processes that produce force, but that does not mean that any or all of them are the same as gravity.

Sometimes the argument is given that weightlessness in a falling elevator is the same as weightlessness in open space; this is deceiving, too. Weightlessness from falling to the Earth is a situation where gravity and acceleration toward the Earth cancel each other out. There is no "deep space' form of weightlessness. Either gravity is pulling you in toward the Earth in free fall, or you are accelerating away from the Earth at just the right speed and trajectory to be in orbit around the Earth. Either way you are accelerating either toward the Earth or away from the Earth. If you were just floating in deep space, no matter how far away you are from the Earth, you will be pulled toward the Earth if the Earth was the only other physical object. So gravity produces acceleration or it resists acceleration, but gravity is not the same thing as acceleration.

Again, the argument is made that someone inside a closed container cannot tell whether they are falling toward Earth or whether they are in orbit, but the ignorance of the person inside of the box has nothing to do with physics. This is just another word salad game intended to confuse the topic and promote a fallacy. In this case, the fallacy is that gravity is the same thing as acceleration.

## Spacetime Curvature

Everybody has heard about spacetime curvature. This is actually a physical phenomenon that has been conclusively proved to exist. However, the popular narrative is that spacetime curvature is either caused by gravity, or is the cause of gravity.

There is a narrative that says that due to spacetime curvature, as two bodies move in parallel lines toward a massive object, the space between them narrows and the two objects move closer to each other, and this movement toward each other is then gravity. The fallacy here is that gravity is the force between the massive object and the objects moving toward it, and not between two objects that happen to be traveling close to each other toward the massive object. Further, even though the two parallel moving objects will move closer toward each other as they approach the massive object, they will also move away from each other as they pass the massive object; gravity is not repulsive, and so the effect of objects moving away from each other cannot be attributed to gravity.

There is more to this fallacy; spacetime curvature has nothing to do with gravity in the first place. When you call it "space-time" you can play around with the time component and develop a narrative that says that time is slowing down as you approach a massive object. However, if time is a linear phenomenon of the physical Universe, then each moment in time is a time frame filled with physical matter. This means that going into the past and future there is a whole physical Universe per each time frame, and each time frame is fixed and immovable, like frames of a movie. In each time frame, clocks will all show one time. There is no movement in a time frame. The movement occurs (much like watching a movie of consecutive pictures) when consciousness moves from one frame to the next. If an object were to slow down in time (and not in velocity) near a massive object then it would leave its present time frame and appear in another time frame; an object that disappears from its present time frame is no longer present in that time frame, and there is a copy of that object in some other time frame. Nobody has ever witnessed such an event except in movies and in their imagination,

So what is "spacetime curvature?" In short, it is simply just space curvature. Actually, it is space curvature caused by a space density gradient.

What can cause a space density gradient? When an electron binds with a proton to form a neutron, the binding is not a simple attachment of two adjacent structures; the binding takes place when the space occupied by the electron flips over and sticks to the proton. The result is that two particles in two spaces now occupy the space of one particle; the neutron. This is the cause for space being pinched. And when space pinches, the surounding space is pulled in, much like the popular rubber sheet analogy used to explain spacetime curvature.

The presence of a massive number of neutrons causes a large amount of space around it to be pinched. The Riemann curvature mathematics used by General Relativity theory quantifies the curvature of space around massive objects. Riemann's mathematics not only quantifies the curvature, but also the space density; such that space nearest a massive object, like a star, has less density than space further out.

What a space density gradient does is it allows photons traveling through the low space density gradient to advance further ahead in its travels than if space had normal density far away from massive objects. Light around a star then becomes lensed, and the light path bends such that distant stars behind the massive object can be seen. The same space density gradient also explains why planets orbitting close to a star advances in its orbit; there is less space to travel through when orbitting close to a star than there is when orbitting further away from a star.

Einstein's General Relativity theory correctly quantifies the light around stars and the orbits of planets, but it isn't because of gravity, it is because of space density gradients. Newton's laws of gravity are 100% valid, and the orbits of planets follow Newton's laws perfectly within the space density gradients.

This revelation causes a problem. It was Bernhard Riemann who discoverd the complex mathematics behind the space density gradient, not Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein's contribution was to attribute the space density gradients to gravity, which turns out to be wrong. It was through "word salad" and wrong analogies that Albert Einstein sold General Relativity as a replacement theory for gravity.

Here is my Quora explanation for the fallacy of the block universe theory.